Laserfiche WebLink
302 <br />REGULAR MEETING <br />JULY 30,. 1984 <br />general specifications <br />mation considerations. <br />services availability, <br />availability, personnel <br />data storage capacity, <br />capability, convenience <br />computers, workload exp <br />requirements, ease of o <br />requirements. <br />were established relative to seleced auto - <br />They included vendor capability, support <br />system reliability, equipment and software <br />requirements,' education requirements, <br />terminal emulation and file transfer <br />of integration with mini and mainframe <br />ansion capability, physical facility <br />perations, documentation and security <br />Mr. Nagengast and the final report provided indicated that the <br />evaluation,of vendors bids consisted of the following steps: <br />- Evaluating each vendor bid to determine if it met <br />the specified mandatory requirements in. the Request <br />for Bid; and eliminating any bids from further con- <br />sideration if they did not meet these requirements; <br />- Preparing a detailed cost projection for each vendor <br />alternative in order to identify the estimated costs <br />associated with implementing and maintaining each <br />vendor system for a five year period. <br />- Performing a detailed evaluation of those vendor <br />bids whose acquisition costs or five-year estimated <br />projected costs were relatively low (these alternatives <br />included Burroughts, Computerland, Computer Specialists <br />and General Micro). These vendors were awarded evalua- <br />tion points based upon their ability to provide for <br />the requirements of the City. Requirements of the City <br />were defined in two major categories including general <br />purpose application software specifications and overall <br />general specifications. The other remaining higher <br />cost vendor alternatives were automatically given <br />the maximum 125,000 evaluation points (out of a <br />possible 125,000). <br />- Computing a cost-effectiveness ratio, that is, the <br />ratio of total evaluation points to total system cost. <br />Because none of the higher cost bids which were auto- <br />matically given the maximum evaluation points were <br />the highest among all vendors, no further evaluation <br />of these vendor bids was necessary. <br />The system which had the highest cost-effectiveness ratio that is, the highest ratio of total evaluation points to <br />total system cost -- was given t -e lig est ranking. <br />Mr. Hill advised that state statute criteria which states that the <br />Board accept the lowest and best bid also mandates the Board to <br />look beyond the dollar cost in order to choose the best bid possible. <br />Mr. Hill further stated that this award is not a typical one <br />because the Board must look at the dollar costs and the needs of <br />the City, which Crowe Chizek and Company did by formulating <br />objective criteria. <br />Mr. Nagengast further advised that he is willing to meet with <br />individual vendors who submitted bids and discuss in detail the <br />evaluation made of their particular bid. <br />Mr. Bruno Eidietis, President of Computer Specialists, Division of <br />Audio Specialists, Inc., 401 North Michigan Street, South Bend, <br />Indiana, was present at the meeting and addressed the Board. Mr. <br />Eidietis advised that he is confused as to why the City is award- <br />ing to a vendor that is approximately $20,000.00 higher than the <br />bid which he submitted. He additionally requested copies of the <br />bids submitted by Computerland as well as the evaluation of the <br />bids compiled by Crowe Chizek and Company. It was determined that <br />Mr. Nagengast will provide these materials to Mr. Eidietis and a <br />meeting to discuss the matter will be arranged. <br />